From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Tom <Tom.Rix@windriver.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:04:44 -0600
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] ep93xx: Refactoring of timer code
In-Reply-To: <20100223224402.GO20201@darwin>
References: <7ee75976e78e2f82b4163fe1ff4233a850d4393c.1266962256.git.matthias@kaehlcke.net>
	<20100223220421.GK20201@darwin>
	<20100223222342.7BCDDE8CCE0@gemini.denx.de>
	<20100223224402.GO20201@darwin>
Message-ID: <4B84893C.8000600@windriver.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> Hi Wolfgang,
> 
> El Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 11:23:42PM +0100 Wolfgang Denk ha dit:
> 
>> In message <20100223220421.GK20201@darwin> you wrote:
>>> ep93xx: Refactoring of the timer code, including the following changes
>> ...
>>> +#define TIMER_FREQ			508469
>>> +#define CLK_TICKS_PER_SYS_TICK		(TIMER_FREQ / CONFIG_SYS_HZ)
>> ...
>>> +		ticks *= (CLK_TICKS_PER_SYS_TICK * CONFIG_SYS_HZ);
>> ...
>>> +		ticks = usecs * CLK_TICKS_PER_SYS_TICK * CONFIG_SYS_HZ;
>> Why don't you use
>>
>> 	ticks *= TIMER_FREQ;
>> resp.
>> 	ticks = usecs * TIMER_FREQ;
>>
>> The combination of " / CONFIG_SYS_HZ * CONFIG_SYS_HZ" is just a bad
>> NO-OP (with rounding errors).
> 
> you certainly have a point, i'm going to change this as you proposed
> 
>> Hm... re-reading the optimized code makes me wonder if the variable
>> really should be called "ticks" - looks more as a frequency to me?
> 
> here i disagree, the function returns the number of ticks that pass in
> a certain number of microseconds, so i think 'ticks' is an appropiate
> name
> 
Perhaps a comment on the units of TIMER_FREQ ?
This is minor point.
Otherwise looks fine.
Tom


> thanks for your review!
>